1. TTO Role in University / Corporate Partnership
Steve Bauer
Director
RERC on Technology Transfer

2. Acknowledgement
This is a presentation of the Rehabilitation Engineering Research Center on Technology Transfer, which is funded by the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research of the Department of Education under grant number H133E The opinions contained in this publication are those of the grantee and do not necessarily reflect those of the U.S Department of Education.

3. Discussion Generic U. TTO Academic (Supply Side)
Industry (Demand Side)
Case: “Disability” Products

4. Generic U. Tech Transfer Office
What do they care about?
Revenue
License, options income supports TTO
Sole focus on commercialization
Home runs
Health sciences
Control Intellectual Property
Access to faculty expertise, research infrastructure
What don’t they care about?
Patents, research funding, corporate funding

5. Generic U. Tech Transfer Office
What they do
Manage technology portfolios
What they don’t do
Cast broad nets for technology disclosures
Successful U. TTO doesn’t either

6. All the Raw Materials. Key to TTO Efficiency and Effectiveness.
Academicians (Supply Side)
What (can) they provide?
Technology disclosures
Knowledge of market, technology, industry
Market research
Primary lead on licensing opportunities
Expertise
Necessary to license early stage research
All the Raw Materials. Key to
TTO Efficiency and Effectiveness.

7. Entrepreneurial Culture $, Prestige, Opportunity
Academicians (Supply Side)
What do they care about?
Efficient, effective, visible, helpful TTO
Revenue
Patents
Academic prestige for commercial activity
Research funding
Corporate research
Entrepreneurial Culture
$, Prestige, Opportunity

8. Business (Demand Side)
What do they care about?
Efficient, effective, visible, helpful TTO
Technology
Business culture
Corporate research
Efficient (predictable) handling of new IP
Easy (predictable) access to expertise
Easy (predictable) access to research infrastructure
Easy (predictable) access to cheap labor

9. Business (Demand Side)
Non-IP Research
Market research
Customer needs
Design requirements
Prototype / software development
Prototype / software testing
Design validation
Clinical trials
Collaborative grant development (SBIR, STTR)
T2RERC Fortune 500 Project
Supply Push Project
Demand Pull Project

10. Important training at Successful U.
Where They Meet
Business Culture
Corporate lead
Roles
Deliverables
Timeline
New intellectual property
Product development cycles
Communication
Accountability
Important training at Successful U.

11. Where They Meet + Technology licensing, $
Corporate Research, Research $
Non-IP Research, Research $
Entrepreneurial Culture
Generic U. +
Successful U.
Academicians who work regularly with manufacturers
in an entrepreneurial culture are much more likely
to make technology disclosures.
(Owen-Smith, 2001)

12. Corporate research $ should be a key indicator of TTO effectiveness.
Federal vs. Corporate Research
University Research $
Licenses from
Federal $
Corporate $
$149.0B
$16.9B
67%
19%
8.9 : 1
(9.6 : 1 for 2004)
3.5 : 1
Based on a Five Year Study (Thursby, 2001)
Corporate research $ should be a
key indicator of TTO effectiveness.

13. Disability: What’s the Problem?
Generic U. TTO
Unfamiliar technologies
Preconceptions
Low tech, simple, uninteresting
Unfamiliar markets
Small… [trans-generational…]
Unfamiliar industries
Small… [eyeglasses…]
No $, no effort
Generic U. TTO is “the problem.”

15. Conclusion Successful U. TTO
Broker and facilitator, not central figure
Focus on customer needs
#1: Business
#2: Academicians
Efficient, effective, visible, helpful
Entrepreneurial culture
Business culture
Corporate $ […] as metric
Singles, doubles… mow the grass…
They don’t “need” you!

16. Steve Bauer smbauer@buffalo.edu 716-829-3141 x 117
Thank You!
Steve Bauer
x 117
T2RERC Public Policy Project is examining university
licensing that benefits people with and aging into disability.

17. Selected References AUTM U.S. Licensing Survey: FY 2004
Bauer S.M., Lane J.P. "Convergence of Assistive Devices and Mainstream Products: Keys to University Participation in Research, Development & Commercialization,“ Technology and Disability, Vol. 18, No. 1, 2006 (in press)
Bauer S.M., “Demand Pull Technology Transfer,” The Journal of Technology Transfer, Vol. 28, Nos. 3/4, August 2003, pp
Owen-Smith J., Powell W.W., “To Patent or Not: Faculty Decisions and Institutional Success in Technology Transfer,” The Journal of Technology Transfer, Vol. 26, No. 1/2, January 2001, pp
Rehabilitation Engineering Research Center on Technology Transfer, URL:
Technology Assessment of the U.S. Assistive Technology Industry, U.S. Department of Commerce: Bureau of Industry and Security, Office of Strategic Industries and Economic Security Strategic Analysis Division, February 2003
Thursby J.G., Thursby M.C., “Characteristics and Outcomes of University Licensing: A Survey of Major U.S. Universities,” The Journal of Technology Transfer, Vol. 26, No. 1/2, January 2001, pp 59-72